Different from me

1470: 

I doubt if there is a sudden welling up of kindness that stimulates one's sense of caring.  I think it stems more from an interest in seeing the differences in others, whether it’s racial, sexual or species difference.  In whatever form, it’s the diversity of life that becomes so deeply fascinating. And from that comes the looking-out-for, the 'caring'.

At first, the differences don’t show up as attractive.  Take ideas for instance.  If your idea differs from mine, I might find that threatening.  When you introduce your idea to me, it might be unfamiliar and scary at first, but if I can consider it, it may show me whole new possibilities.  It may be the window to an opportunity to help me move on, to self-develop and to grow up.

         

Perhaps great ideas, for example those concerning the value of non-separation and non-violence, suggest essential radical changes in one's whole approach to life.  They suggest a more egalitarian and gentler way of treating one another.  They show how one can accept  animals as being of equal value and as sovereign beings.

If my change of attitude can take me this far, it will impel me to make lots of changes in my life.  That's the scary bit.  Take animals, in some ways we’re superior to them, but in other ways we’re their inferiors.  I can learn a lot from them to my benefit, by observing them and without hurting them.  By realising some of their superior qualities I’m more likely to re-think how I view them and how I see other humans.  For example, they may have better survival skills or better relationship skills, or they're less gratuitously violent with each other.  They probably lack revenge and they don’t bear a grudge.  They seem, in many ways, so much more sophisticated than humans.

         

If I’m going to accept animals as my equal, I’ll need to use my imagination.  If animals are worthy of a respect equal to that which I would show another human, then I'd be unable to condone their abuse.  Hurting an animal would be no different to my hurting you.  That's what happens with something like racism, where we behave badly with someone from a foreign culture, because we can get away with it, because they’re not in a position to defend themselves.  Speciesism is no different.  We have no reason to treat any animal with disrespect, just because they appear to have different physical or intellectual powers.  And likewise with people from a different cultural background to ourselves.

A non-speciesist attitude isn’t merely a matter of trying to be kinder to animals, it's more that we start to find an interest in them, and an interest in learning more about them.  Our respect for them is likely to spring from wonder which turns into a gratitude for what animals shows us about ourselves, that we didn’t know before, or couldn’t have discovered by other means.  Particularly valuable, is learning just how slanted the human perception of our own superiority is, and how animals shouldn’t be regarded as insignificant enough that we needn’t care about how we treat them.

The implications of such new learning is obvious, in that no longer can we blithely accept all the advantages of animal-abuse.  For a start, we'd be unable to condone the farming of them or killing them or exploiting them, meaning no longer using them for food or clothing.

But if such considerations, at first, make us feel uncomfortable, then we have to convince ourselves that we feel hostility towards them or feel threatened by the unfamiliarity of them.  But whether this is hatred or fear or simply disregard, it stems from an unresolved attitude to difference, whether it be species- or racial-difference.  Once we lose that fear, then immediately we start to empathise with their situation.  We want to liberate them.  We want to alleviate their terrible suffering. And our dislike switches from hostility to admiration. 

Humans, doing what we’re good at

1469: 

Humans are a paradox when dealing with ‘underlings’.  We’re capable of love and yet capable of the most cynical pragmatism which ends up as exploitation.  Animals are cared for at one moment and pushed down the next.  We look after them, feed them and shelter them but only to make use of them rather than out of any affection for them.  Most ‘useable’ animals we use and exhaust, the dairy cow which has a twenty year life span is exhausted by the age of ten years, her milk supply dried up and is of no further use to the human and so she is executed.  All farm-animals are exploited in a similar way - we suck every advantage from them, then kill them. It’s an ultimate act of violence and betrayal.

At heart, humans are not natural tormentors, we’re much better at alleviating pain.  We like making life smoother for others.  We can be very good to our neighbours and especially good to the vulnerable, not just out of kindness but because we’re genuinely interested by them and want to be useful to them.  Humans can be very caring for ‘the other’.  We can show concern for the ecosystem, for a needy person or a distressed animal.  We get involved in ‘foreign causes’ and we do it, to some extent, out of kindness but mainly we do it because it’s interesting and it challenges us to solve a problem somewhere.  But all that comes to naught when there’s something even more attractive in taking advantage of them.  There is a certain allure about being able to control and enslave the vulnerable, and none more vulnerable than the captive animal.  They have no choice but to let us indulge ‘in’ them, providing us with anything from delicious foods, to handy research tools, to companions for going walking with or being entertained by.  Animals are a most reliable resource.  They’re vulnerable and available.  They’re guaranteed to satisfy many of our needs.

But that means we have to turn away from a loving relationship with them and enter into a contemptuous relationship, in order to bend them to our will and make use of them.  Humans have built whole industries out of them, reducing them to mere foodstuffs or commodities.

For most of us, animals aren’t our livelihood we just eat them.  And that in itself is an anomaly, because we don’t need to.  We kill them as food because we don’t know of other ways to feed ourselves, and we have a taste for their highly flavoured muscle tissue and secretions, and less taste for anything else in the food chain which is blander.  We don’t kill animals out of hatred but because of a collective process that we’ve come to accept as natural, which flows seamlessly from the live animal to the dead animal at the abattoir to the butcher to the consumer to the dinner plate.  Our acceptance of this process is not very well thought-out. Meat-eating is automatic, learnt, unquestioned.  If we ever did think about it we’d probably abandon it in favour of becoming vegetarian-vegan, if only to enjoy a more benign relationship with the animal kingdom.

Most of us have our happiest memories of times we’ve spent in the company of animals, whether as pets, or as wild or farmed animals.  If we ever feel warm towards them or want to help them or free them, we can’t expect any thanks.  In fact a friendly nuzzle from our dog is about the most tangible sign of appreciation we’ll ever get.  For our part we can interact with animals in a symbiotic way, they being satisfying for us as we can be for them.  We don’t need to harm them.

Thinking about it

1468:

Perhaps there are two basic approaches amongst animal activists/advocates, there are those who show the worst treatment of farmed animals, to jolt people into action (stop eating and wearing animals), and those who appeal to the thinking consumers who are already opening up to their own sense of compassion and health.  The first group, the rescuers who show their video footage made at a factory farm, are the shock troops.  The other type of activist aims at those who are somewhat already touched by what they’ve seen but who are capable of letting the horror-images fade.  For a less powerful but perhaps more lasting effect, the second activist group uses words to get across details, to explain why things happen to animals and the rationales used to keep the system going.  And of course, this is where words, rather than high impact images, explain the chain of events linking the economic pressures that drive the farmers to do what they do and the customer to buy what they buy.

There are many different ways to communicate the situation to people who are largely reluctant to listen.  We might use video footage, still pictures, words and face-to-face talk.  But on this subject, there’s a lot of information to be passed across.  Consequently, the information easily becomes too heavy to digest.  So, as communicators, we need to avoid the temptation to say too much, too soon or with too much emotional punch.  We mustn’t lose our reputation as information providers.  If we ever preach, it’s a big turn-off, and if we bore people they’ll simply turn off even quicker.

The aim of the exercise is not to convert anyway.  We don’t want people to simply agree with us.  We want them to think and ask questions.  As speakers, we don’t want passive acceptance, nor does the Animal Rights movement want tame followers.  The greatest need is for people to find out what they need to know and then use their powers of imagination to see how things could be.  And that might include many issues, including animal liberation, environmentalism and caring for impoverished people.

But we all need to know which issue will most effectively spark other issues, and it’s probable that the world will find a very great benefit when human eating habits change, from omnivorous to herbivorous. There will be fewer forests being cleared for pasture for grazing animals, more trees to combat climate change, less fodder grown for animal feed and thus more plant food for feeding people - the planet benefits, starvation eases, the animals are reprieved from slavery, and human health improves.

Perhaps the main reason a vegan diet is still regarded as a threat is because it touches on so many interrelated attitudes, and for many people that might seem rather too overwhelming.  Which means that our job is to show how it needn’t be the case; we need to be able to show how changes will merge normally into our daily life and how putting an effort in will reap rich rewards.

Direct Action or the Indirect Approach?

Edited by CJ Tointon

In the Animal Rights movement, there are several different approaches to get those 'obstinate omnivores' to stop patronising the animal killing trade and to stop the 'animal killers' plying their trade.  The second lot are too far gone for me to bother about.  But they still need to be challenged and there are those who do come into contact with them and expose their cruelties to future customers.  They take evidence that they collect from animal farms and present it in schools and tertiary institutions, hopefully persuading young people, by way of information and video footage, to boycott animal products when they are old enough to make their own decisions.

My focus, however, is at the cash register.  This is where the consumer shells out lots of money and lends support to things they should not be supporting.   I like to imagine sitting on the shoulders of the customers (not literally!), whispering in their ears, "Go back!  Put it back"!

To get the consumer to switch allegiance, from supporting to boycotting, is the difficulty facing the animal advocate.  My way would be to focus on the customers.  They have free-will and are probably addicted to the product anyway.  I believe they respond best to the gentle/coaxing method.  Other animal activists might take a different approach altogether.

Take those who make up the Animal Liberation Front (a direct action group in Europe).  They’re criticised for breaking the law, albeit usually only the law of trespass. They aren’t recognised for what they're trying to do.  Society doesn't acknowledge them for bringing so many animal atrocities to public attention.  In fact they are roundly condemned for their 'direct action'.

Yes - it may be true that these activists are willing to destroy property to save animals who are living in disgusting conditions on intensive farming operations or laboratories.  They risk being fined and even the loss of their own liberty to make their point.  They save many tortured animals and they promise not to cause injury to people during a rescue.  It takes guts to do this - to be an activist involved in direct action!  Perhaps the greatest service they provide is getting video footage, circulating it, getting people informed and thus reducing the excuse that "We didn’t know!".  And it takes even more guts to sink your savings into creating refuges for the animals that are saved.  But 'Society' still doesn't get it and still focuses on the outrage of direct action, when the only real damage done is to Animal Industry property.  Surely, a few broken doors and locks is a small price to pay to inform people of what is really going on.  These days, most adults are so far gone with their 'egg and bacon breakfast' mentality, that they disagree with anything that interferes with what they want.  Perhaps there's a chance that the kids will take note and respond positively???

But I want to come back to the older, more deeply entrenched 'animal-users' and the problem of persuading them to change by gentler means.  The General Public are intoxicated by the fact that they have almost everyone else on-side.  They're confident in defending their right to eat egg and bacon breakfasts.  Anything that threatens this is put down to the hostile motives of Vegans attacking their way of life and trying to destroy 'normal' lifestyles.

To get past this is almost like trying to convince a person that black is white!  If there is going to be any progress along these lines, we have to find a way to break the obstinacy of each individual.  We have to lure them away from the cash register where they buy all their animal stuff.  We have to get each person to feel magnetised by an entirely different impulse.  Our job is to feed them the 'magic pudding' of vegan logic and inspiration, create a boycott mentality - towards which they will find themselves helplessly drawn. 

Ideally, I'd like to make the prospect of changing to a vegan lifestyle so attractive that the whole process of change becomes a pleasure, not a duty.  And then, I'd like to make it so 'fashionable' that everyone will change, thus making the whole approach to life a gentler thing altogether.  Once this can be achieved, the abattoirs would go out of business and the killing would have to stop. ('Animal farmers' don't usually have the guts to do their own slaughtering!) 

By influencing the customer, we hit the animal exploiters where it hurts most - a willing boycotter is the biggest threat to the animal trade.  When left to consider the extent of the animal cruelty in which they're involved, the customer will eventually come around without our needing to bully or blackmail them.  And this approach would hopefully compliment the work of  'the trespassers'.   Those who release the imprisoned animals and lead them to sanctuary and those who film the abuse and lead kids along a new path.  Each activist may have a different approach, but we each play our part in bringing the vast army of animal-eaters around to a healthier, kinder, non-abusive attitude.

Principle separated from Taste

1466:

The Animal Rights movement has a bucket load of embarrassing facts and logical arguments to persuade people to abandon animal-exploited products?  But why would omnivores listen to us? It's not compulsory listening.

This is the free-willed human we’re talking about here.  This is the over-eater and habitual spender, who is one amongst the vast majority.  This is the 'animal-eater' who is presently quite comfortable, and apart from the stray vegan, there's no one else to say animal-eating is wrong.  The free-willed human may be obstinate and perhaps even arrogant.  Each one may be said to be selfish and thoughtless.  Those who think at all about animal issues but are determined not to change their eating habits have probably spent a lifetime building walls against our arguments.

Each one is certainly a customer of the Animal Industries.  To all intents and purposes, I’m referring to everyone, the collective, the make-up of our Society, and yet none are necessarily hard hearted or bloodthirsty by nature.  Perhaps they aren't even implacably anti-vegan.  But it's likely that each one is attracted and often addicted to many of the yummy animal products currently on sale and within reach of almost all people.  The last thing on Earth they want to do is give up these favourite products.  And never to return to them again.

Consequently they don't want to hear ANYTHING we’ve got to say.  In their mind we’re to be boycotted in the same way that we boycott a lot of what they eat.  They boycott us and we boycott them, in effect.  It amounts to a lot of separation.  Which is why vegans have their work cut out. 

Directing Our Approach

1465: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

When I decided to move away from being a 'non-vegan', it involved altering major food habits.  It was to be a test and an adventure but it would all hinge upon my willingness to change.  I wasn't sure how serious I was, how willing, or how permanent my change would be.  So, I carefully observed myself as I went through my own change process, as I would later carefully observe other people going through theirs.  I needed to know that I was in control of my own brain and that I wouldn't try to wriggle out of my decision to change such a major daily habit.

With a newfound respect for animals, I was deciding not to eat them or take part in anything with even the slightest hint of supporting a system which 'used' them.  This was my experiment.  I didn't know if I could do it, but when I later found that I could, I then had a strong urge to persuade others to change in the same way.  Would they try to wriggle out of it, like I did at first?  Would they put up all sorts of reasons why NOT to change?  Or would they be determined to make their change solid and permanent?

What are the main reasons for this sort of change and which are the most convincing?  What holds the change in position permanently?   Is it health concerns, ethical concerns, a dream of building a new future for all? How could I inspire others to do the right thing?  Everything was as straightforward as it was slippery. Everything was tempting (on both sides of the argument) as to whether to change or not.

If you're a pianist and want to perform, you first have to master the piano in order to entertain the listener and be able to play from the inspiring repertoire written for the piano.  But with "Veganism", there's no great skill to acquire before going out and inspiring others.  There again, there's not much chance of an audience being 'entertained' by what we have to say either!  Therefore, approaching this subject involves an entirely different set of rules and the need to adopt a subtle method of communication.  No particular skill or talent is needed, just an insight into what makes people want to make such a major change in their life.

So, to this end, I decided not to go down the usual hellfire-and-damnation path.  I knew instinctively that intimidation wouldn't work.  I wanted to find a better way of telling others about what I believed could inspire a profound personal change, even a transformation of humanity.  But first, old cobwebs had to be swept aside.  I'd have to rule out the obvious instinct to preach: "Look at me - follow me", because it might sound too self-righteous.  Also, I'd have to rule out any use of disapproval, guilt, shame or other emotional blackmail to frighten people into change.

Not only was I now a diet changed person, I was also someone needing to find a new way to approach others.   In particular, I wanted to be an advocate for a non-violent approach to everything.  My idea was (and still is) to eat from the plant kingdom and use only 'cruelty-free' products and services.  I was keen to use the 'gentler approach' wherever possible.  I wanted to cut out all traces of 'hardness', especially in my approach to others about Animal Rights, etc.  I wanted to persuade by using gentle suggestion only.  And if no one else agreed with this approach - then so be it!!  I was going to commit myself to that approach anyway!

          

I realise that this is not how many other - equally sincere - Animal Activists see things.  They agree about the 'food thing' and no longer being party to 'animal abuse', but they might not want to take it to the extremes that I favoured - not using any psychological force when trying to persuade others.  Because this matter is so serious, they might prefer to push things along, to get a quicker result.  They would argue that the urgency of the situation (animal cruelty) calls for a more robust approach.  And maybe they're right in one important way.  Perhaps we can’t afford to let people get away with what they do.  Consumers especially are culpable in the system they take part in and perhaps they need to be woken-up regarding the extent of cruelty in animal farming and the danger in which their compliance puts both themselves and the animals.

Nevertheless, it got me thinking.  I began to look more closely at the standard ways we humans attempt to persuade others to do the 'right thing'.  We so often fail, especially when we question any behaviour concerning non-humans.  It's because the idea that animals are just 'things' is so ingrained.  Our anthropocentric gene kicks in and we come down on the side of self interest.  It's the reason why any form of persuasion using intimidating tactics to make people "go vegan" will always fail.  Heels get dug in and the typical human will always revert to the default position - the human need to make use of animals. 

There's something profoundly wrong with this sort of attitude.  Something has gone badly awry.  This is the law of the bully and animals are easy to bully.  We develop attitudes and then fix them so firmly that (on both sides) we lock ourselves in.  Neither the animal-user nor the animal-defender can move on.  We're supposed to get results by either beating ourselves up, or by beating others into submission.  But such results never last. People always resort back to the old, tried and tested ways of dealing with difficult problems and we make sure we believe we're right.  

As far as I can see, our inflexible approaches towards each other when persuading change is the reason they fail.  We humans have a reluctance to observe change, especially when it's an unpalatable change.  We are so taken with our own human brilliance that we can only see that side of us shining.  We can't step away from it nor step away from the 'normal' way in which humans all over the world behave in relation to animals.  But we have a serious problem here!  The animal stuff we eat is making our bodies sick and our unethical treatment of innocent beings is making us 'heartsick'.   Humans ALWAYS fall back on their brains to solve major problems and ignore the voice of reason coming from the 'heart'.  This is why we vegans will only become effective communicators with non-vegans when we direct our approach gently and sensitively.

Matters of safety

1464: 

When vegans talk about ‘going vegan’ we are suggesting nothing less than a major lifestyle change - a lifetime lived on a plant-based diet, wearing plant-based clothes and using cruelty-free products.  For us, the reasoning behind all this is obvious and for most established vegans relatively easy.  To us it feels perfectly safe and satisfying.  We wouldn’t want it any other way.

Collectively, it’s the answer to so many of the world’s great problems.  And because we feel so sure about it, we go to great lengths to tell others about it.  But, for my part, I must keep reminding myself that for non-vegans it’s a big step.  And if they aren’t yet convinced about the safety of a vegan diet, then it’s down to us to talk to them about vegan nutrition.  We have to be ready to field questions about protein, iron, calcium, vitamins, etc. and only then, if we pass muster, can we get down to the ethics that drive the whole thing along and provide the solid reasons for our boycotting animal products. 

Freewill

178: 

I need to remind myself that free-will rules.  If I’m persuading a free-willed mind to come down on my side, I must strike a balance between its independence and my giving it a shove along.  On the ‘shove’ side, I might use a few well known mind-shockers, concerning animal cruelty and human health.  They’re either big off-putters or big persuaders.  My shove-along is for habit-change, specifically changing one’s shopping decisions.

My theory is that when people understand constructive reasons for change, they’ll be more inclined to experiment with change.  Today, change is happening every where, with many of us impelled to change to keep pace with others who’re already changing.  This might simply be keeping up with a certain fashion.

As a free-willed person, if I’m going to change (when something needs changing) I have to be inspired.  My change has to be made voluntarily, and with the aim of it being long term.  But if I’m pushed or manipulated, my change probably won’t last long.  I'll never knowing if it was really my change or if I was copying someone else’s.

If we’re attracted to any of today’s movements-for-change, like cruelty-free buying, veganism, animal liberation or planet-saving, if its our own choice and it’s done in the right spirit, we’ll never look back.  On the other hand if I change out of fear it could turn into a nightmare - like when the doctor tells you you’re seriously ill and you make a dash for healthy living, in terror of your life.  Fear might spark a change but there’s nowhere for the changes to get a grip.  When change is hurried and laden with unrealistic expectations, results ‘retreat’ and disappointment follows.  Whereas enthusiastic, passionate change is something else entirely.

Whenever I’ve set out on any big life-changes, I’ve been aware of the danger of reverting back to old ways as soon as things got rough.  In other words, I’ve had to be sure the initial spark was strong; I always wanted to keep my free-will intact.

To me, freewill is the apex of human development.  I don’t want to lose this great facility.  I know that if my free-will is threatened, my strength of purpose returns when I am upholding a core value – for example,  just by being vegan I know that I can, in a small way, help to heal one of the World’s big problems.  That helps me reflect on the bigger picture. I see everything through vegan eyes, and can see favourable resolution.  And this of course makes me want everyone to become vegan.

If I hold back at all it’s out of another core value, which is respect for free-will, not my own but yours.  I know I mustn’t be disrespectful of anyone’s free-will.  So, for instance, I can’t be having a casual conversation with you and then suddenly ask you, “What’s that in your sandwich”?, pointing to the ham I can see you eating in it.  That would seem like my trying to pick a fight with you.  You’d be offended and defensive, and want to avoid me in future.

As a friend, if I think you should change I can only suggest it, mildly without disturbing your free-will.  Specifically, this is something you are likely to be sensitive about (your right to eat what you like in your sandwich).  For me though, the temptation is for me to interfere, to suggest less mildly!  There’s nothing to stop me from trying to manipulate you, but as a lover of free-will I won’t.  Whatever I suggest, in terms of Animal Rights, should be seen to be trampling on your freewill.  And anyway, you won’t let me do that, since you will always want to make up your own mind for yourself.

If there are going to be any major changes in your life, you firstly need to assess them for safety, health safety, social safety and a few other safeties too.  So, with these constraints in mind, I’m brought back to the importance of people eventually having to make their own decisions for themselves, which can only be based on a confidence based on what they’ve been told.  Confidence in what we, vegans, are saying.

         

Any suggestions I make to you have to be both convincing and enticing, without any emotional pressure from me.  I’d rather have you dragging information out of me than my foisting it onto you. 

The Animal Rights position

1462: 

If we want to advocate for animals then we must be committed to vegan eating, clothing and commodities.  If that isn’t in place we won’t be taken seriously, but once that is secure and we also appear to be healthy, then people are likely to consider our diet to be not such a bad idea after all.

         

But however convincing we are, there are always going to be those who hold onto old attitudes in order to avoid making a radical diet change.  Among them are people who insist vegan food isn’t safe, to become convinced that vegans are foolish to eat that way.  And if that doesn't work, then they'll suspect vegans of having dubious motives, or that our compassion is not genuine, or that we are lying about what is happening to the animals.  If they, in their own minds, can dismiss us, it makes us no better than them, and that means what we are saying can be dismissed.

But there are lots of people who just don’t care about animals or diets or ethics.  Or they may be deliberately ignorant.  Or they’re presently making a living out of the animal industries.  As challenging as that might be for vegans, we can’t waste too much time trying persuade the unpersuadable.  We must move on, without getting everyone’s approval for everything we do.

         

If the cause of Animal Rights isn’t recognised as urgent and essential it will always be left on the backburner.  As vegans we must keep the issues in high profile.  Alongside this, we must encourage and support a wide variety of cruelty-free commodities to come onto the market, to make it that much easier for vegan replacements to be found.  If many people operate product-boycotts, they will be instrumental in encouraging businesses to reinvent themselves, in order to accommodate a new market demand. 

Getting the 'listener' to identify with us, when speaking in public

1461: 

Ostensibly, we might have been invited to speak, but in order to speak freely and say what we want to say fully, we need to get past the defence barriers a 'listener' might put up.  We need to get his or her permission to open up this taboo area.

Talking about abattoirs and meat eating is relatively straight forward, since the audience is likely to be generally interested in vegetarianism, even considered giving up meat themselves.  But when we go down the road of abolitionism, veganism and animal rights, we tread on the most dangerous ground, because we eventually must arrive at the dairy.  That's where the alarm bells go off, when people think we’re going to attack their cakes and ice cream and adding milk to their coffee, etc.  Everyone knows how many thousands of food products use milk as an ingredient.  (And egg).  Giving up milk means giving up using each one of these thousands of products.  And this is where each person will weigh up the implications of showing concern for the dairy cow.

So, as a start, we can explain that most people are unaware of what happens on the dairy farm.  We may need to warn them that we’re heading into a contentious area. Then, before explaining the details of how milk is extracted from cows, cover the details of the calf's role in the cow's lactation process, leading to the abuse of both cow and calf.  Most milk drinkers want to believe that the dairy is not a cruel place and the milk from cows is good for us - both untrue.

The ‘dairy misconception’ will almost certainly bring about disagreement.  People want to defend their right to use this particular product without qualm.  If we try to induce guilt, they'll turn off.  It needs skill on our part to pull this off - this is where we need to draw out questions and encourage discussion.  Prizing out the deeper concerns of people at this point is crucial.  Body language is everything: we must be truly inviting.  Our tone of voice: it must be calm never shrill, and we must try to maintain eye contact and remember to smile!  We're wanting them to feel comfortable to talk about an uncomfortable subject. And if we're talking to a group of people and they're listening, we need to show confidence in what we are speaking about, and that means we're not making too many references to notes.  If we know our stuff, the thread of our talk should largely be remembered.

         

Unlike a book, which one can put down and then pick up again later, direct interaction with people when promoting difficult-to-swallow concepts, like Animal Rights, means keeping ourselves out of the way and becoming almost like a book.  But most importantly, we need to show understanding of the other person’s struggle to come to grips with what we’re saying.

A speaker who seems a bit vulnerable, instead of holier than thou, is more approachable.  And in order to be in touch with the way things are today, public speakers should consider that ‘going-vegan’ may be harder today than ever before, because there are so many more competing pressures on people to change.  Self-development is almost an industry today; Animal Rights is just one cause amongst many.

When advocating for Animal Rights, it could seem that we care less about people and more about animals.  So we should stress that we’re trying to win over our fellow humans in order to liberate them, by way of liberating animals; as if the purpose of this particular awareness is to seize our chance to change things for the animals and humans, simultaneously.  In today's society, there’s a need for large numbers of people to put enough pressure on legislators to pass laws, to bring an end to the abuse of animals.  And that means we need a lot of people to be on side. To pull this off, veganism needs to be seen as attractive, significant and meaningful.  If the audience can identify with that, they might take what we are saying seriously, even about dairy products.

A certain tone of voice to make the atmosphere

1460: 

I think it’s important to tell it like it is.  We shouldn’t pretend that becoming an activist for animals or taking on a vegan lifestyle is very easy.  Or very difficult come to that.  Honesty about this particular matter is appreciated, for anyone considering ‘joining up’.

Whoever we’re talking to, whether meat eaters (about their shopping choices) or farmers (about their animals) or teachers or students (about vegan principle), everything we say should eventually come back to the human relationship with animals, and how we've lost sight of some very fundamental principles concerning our human violence.

We all have a strong connection with animals whether we eat them or try to protect them.  For our part, vegans need to talk about animals as if we want to know them, and come to regard them as irreplaceable individuals.  In that way we can talk about animals as if they are different to us but equal to us, in terms of their deserving a right to a life.

Most people don’t think too much about animals, at least, not the ones that are eaten. But here I am, talking about them as if they really mattered!  If anyone disagrees, they need to feel free to say so, by my giving them the green light to interrupt what I'm saying.  If I can let them ask questions, I make this talk more like an open discussion, as if I want to get benefit from the evening by learning and listening as well as speaking.

Let’s say we are speaking to a hall full of people.  We should create an atmosphere as if we are a group of people sitting around a kitchen table, discussing matters of mutual concern.  Because this is an intimate subject, full of contentious issues and a subject crucial to the future of us all, it needs intimacy on all levels in order to discuss it fully.  The success of any public talk is best achieved by the tone of the speaker, intent on avoiding any feeling of separation with those on the listening end.

Making some effort over public speaking

1459:

If we’ve been invited to speak about animal rights in public, we need to establish if the audience is predominantly hostile or warm, and adjust our tone accordingly.  They’ll go cold on us if we're boring or start haranguing them.  An audience will have a collective nose for pompous vegans becoming judgemental so, first up, we must show we are friendly and have something useful to say.

But whether friendly or unfriendly, the audience isn’t under any obligation to stay listening, so we mustn’t lecture them.  If we want to hold their interest, we need to give them something to think seriously about.  Something original, a new slant on what could be a hackneyed theme, and proof that we’ve spent time preparing the talk by showing video footage, pictures, giving examples, and telling stories. Do anything to avoid our talk becoming too dense.

Out of respect to an unknown group of people, we must make it impossible for them to be bored.  Since this is a subject which is difficult and confronting, our talk should move along at a lick.   Without bragging about it, we can give an account of how we’ve experienced the transition to veganism and animal rights, and we lose no face by admitting to any personal difficulties we’ve had; anything to ease the difficulties being envisaged by a listening audience.

The content of the talk might consist of information about animal exploitation and about the implications of a vegan lifestyle on those who want to become advocates for exploited animals.  But if we really want to hold an audience’s attention, they need to know how long we are going to talk.  By keeping it to 20-30 minutes, and reminding listeners that questions and comments are going to be asked for, and by keeping a timer ticking along to remind ourselves how time is passing, our talk is never allowed to become an open ended ramble.

Winning ears

1458: 

  

Non-vegans represent the vast majority of humans: vegans represent a minuscule percentage.  Numbers of vegans are not yet increasing rapidly enough to make veganism fashionable.  Vegans don’t stand out enough as being smarter, kinder, more powerful, more creative or more persuasive than anyone else, not noticeably anyway.  There’s nothing much, other than appearing more healthy, that looks attractive about us.  If we have fewer self-destructive habits or better ethics they don’t stand out enough to catch people’s attention.

If vegans want others to be drawn to our principles we need to be able to talk inspiringly, that is, use arguments that are, at the very least, watertight.  But more importantly, we must be beyond reproach ourselves.  We have to be squeaky genuine.  And we don’t need to go around telling everybody that we are ‘vegan’ either, not because people don’t need to know but because it looks as though we are fishing for compliments.

If I can play down this side of myself I’ll be in a better position to have my say, without seeming to press my point.  On no account do I want to be identified as a door-knocking evangelist, and to that end I resist any temptation to convert people.  Unless I’m asked, I say little.  I volunteer information on request.  My answers are specific to the question asked, and I go easy on the hype.  I find it gives me a better chance of winning ears and eliciting inquiries. 

Stick to the message

1457:

Talking about goodness is dangerous.  People think we’ve got tickets on ourselves, and there’s none uglier than a do-gooder.  And there's none more ridiculous that a masochistic, as in ‘being vegan’ seeming like self punishment.  And adding to this difficult mix is the reason any of us want to be vegan, as if we do it to appear good. For vegans, it’s hard to strike a balance.

So, for my part, I have to be careful not to let my animal-liberation focus veer towards my needing to show off my own wonderfulness.  Even the vaguest hint of that will let people think I’m ‘in it’ for the wrong reasons.

If Animal Rights advocates want to promote a high ideal like ‘vegan principle’, we need to find ways of making it digestible.  For a start, we have to earn respect, and that means no boasting or appearing fake.  And not being too quick to condemn those we regard as ‘The Unprincipled’.

Instead of shaming people or encouraging them to feel guilty, I prefer not to show my hand too quickly.  I’d rather stick to the business in hand by speaking as though I assume your agreement with me. I don't want to speak as if issuing a challenge. I'd rather just deliver the essentials without any emotional embellishment.

When people are at the introduction-stage (and let’s face it, most people know very little about what goes on in the rearing of ‘food’ animals) they’re shy to admit how little they know.  At this stage they must never get the impression I’m out to convert them, but just to get some talking going, pass on a little information.  I don’t want to spook them.  If I seem to expect anything at all, it’s a little reception (with no strings attached).

If I can give you something to hang on to, something that will get you thinking when you are on your own, I’ll have achieved a lot.  I would like you to think my intention is simply for you to be considering what I’m saying (about animal-use). To be taken seriously.

If people can feel us trying to consider their feelings, they won’t mind what we have to say.  So, mainly I want to give off an ‘I’m-on-your-side’ sort of feeling, and act as though I am ready to give you the ‘benefit-of-the-doubt’, and therefore have no interest in making any judgement of you.  My interest is NOT about what people are doing now, but what they could be doing later.  My interest is in a person’s potential, for considering certain things which they might never have considered before. 

         

This might seem like a mild approach, but by addressing each person we meet in this way, there’s instant mutual reception and reciprocation.  When each person is listening, each giving the other the person the benefit of the doubt, then dialogue can exist - each person involved in the discussion is then feeling freer to speak their mind and consider what each is suggesting.

 On the other hand, if I seem unfriendly or fake in any way, my mission fails.  People usually want to take the easier way out - to NOT rebel, NOT think, and particularly NOT talk about it.  If I can’t jolly you along towards a mere chat, I fail. 

But this ‘chatting’ - am I just trying to mess with your mind?  Don’t most people, who are no more than lightly curious, want to inch their way into this subject, at their rate not at mine?  Which means I must be careful not to throw people into the deep end, careful to let them keep control of their own ‘squeamish’ button, whilst at the same time not making them feel uncompassionate.

         

It all goes wrong if you see me as being unfriendly.  It’s likely you’ll see a ‘people-hating vegan’ before you, someone loyal to animals who hates those involved in hurting animals.  If I give you any reason to think of me as a hater of meat-eaters, I hand you the opportunity to rubbish me, and that makes it easier for you to rubbish my arguments.

Passionate and anonymous

1456: 

Seeming to be good doesn’t guarantee anything much at all, least of all our being liked.  If we go around displaying lots of ‘goodness’ at every conceivable opportunity, it either looks like narcissism or bragging, and then we’re someone to be avoided.  We might think we're showing passion, but to others it seems like something rather different.

At the other extreme there’s a person with genuine humility, who looks a lot better but is perhaps a bit ineffectual.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, of course.  So, in the end it’s the depth of our commitment to 'being good' which is our true test.  And nothing guarantees this better than doing what we do as anonymously as possible.  

Logically, you might think passion could go hand in hand with a more antagonistic, direct approach.  For most animal advocates it all starts with passion, linking some unlikely emotions like outrage, compassion, sensitivity and hatred, but that's when passion gets to be a confusion of emotions.  On the one hand our passion is great but if there’s a hard edge to it isn’t understood or it’s just plain unattractive.

Passion can be strong, and expressing it can be loud; we can’t help being proud of our position, as vegans and animal advocates. And it's very difficult to avoid taking the moral high ground, because defending voiceless animals is to speak up for them from a moral standpoint.  But then we get over confident, even confronting. In the end it boils down to guarding against being perceived as ‘up’ our selves. Perhaps we need to keep ourselves out of the picture as far as possible and that way our motives can’t be called into question.

If we can establish respect for who we are and for the way we express our passion, without getting too full of ourselves, we might just win an acceptance of who we are and what we stand for.

Being good

1455: 

By avoiding animal products, by becoming vegan, we can soon come to feel good about our decision.  One’s stomach feels more comfortable, one’s conscience lighter and one’s brain sharper.  But there are other dimensions to consider too.

         

Feeling good is not unconnected to ‘working for the greater good’; doing things which make one feel good because they’re altruistically-intended – which means that some things one is doing are not being done for one's own benefit only.   

But, there must be a distinct difference between the irritating, showy way of ‘doing good’ and the more internal experience of doing good, as when behaving peacefully, as when this is the most productive and enjoyable thing one could be doing. So, at the end of the day we know we've been involved in nothing selfish or violent, and can sleep peacefully in our beds.

Perhaps the most self-convincing way we can promote a selfless and non-violent approach is by starting ‘at-home’, by trying to see the best in others rather than their weaknesses, which involves breaking the habit of value-judging others.  And this happens frequently when we feel strongly about a certain value and others don’t agree that that same value is important.

This question of value-judging crops up a lot where animals are involved, over the validity of using them or not using them.  It’s not an objective science – judging.  I’ve noticed about myself that I’m not consistent about this.  So, when I really like someone then all their virtues are great and all their bad points insignificant.  How subjective is that?  So, it’s often unfair the way we judge someone, as if we use the excuse of our difference of opinion to make an adverse judgement of them as a person.  Nothing is more certain to cause mutual dislike and a digging in of heels over the issue of difference. We end up, if not actually being violent with each other, then certainly destructive of something too valuable to take lightly.

By way of peaceful and non-violent approaches we can avoid all this.  Instead, we can be content simply to sow seeds.  We can fertilise the soil and leave the rest to Nature, leaving the seeds to flower later.  What I mean by working for the greater good, is contributing the most positive influence we can, minus the present-moment judgments.

Perhaps the reason for making judgements about others is that we're in a hurry.  This subject, concerning the use of animals, the statistics of slaughtering, the details of modern farming methods, brings some of us out in a cold sweat.  We can only see the urgency of mass attitude change.  And yet, looking at the situation more coolly, we know we face a mountain, a huge collective behaviour pattern which will take a lot of shifting.  And no one single person is going to magic this mountain away.  If we ever do anything good in our lives, especially over this entrenched attitude to animal-use, the effect of our good work will probably only show up long after we’re dead.  And if that is a reality, and we can accept that, then we might realise that all our urgency only serves to slow the process of change rather than quicken it.

We’re dealing with an as-yet-unspecified set of changes which need to take place in the human psyche.  It’s likely that the concept of animals-being-liberated is so foreign to present-day thinking that it’s likely NOT to come about until certain other preliminaries have been established.  And that’s likely to take time.

So, today is not about impatiently chasing change but about laying foundation stones for future change.  From the point of view of working for ‘The Greater Good’, it is essential we act now for the sake of the future, but most particularly so we can start to ‘feel-good’ about ourselves now, simply because we keep proving to ourselves that we care, and care enough not to have to show off about it.

If, on the other hand, we don’t care about what’s coming, in the vein of “I won’t be around to see it”, then we won’t be much interested in long term planning nor in the concept of altruism.  It will be meaningless.  And instead, self-image will be more important to us, including putting on a show of ‘being good’ and yet letting a little aggression or violence or judgement into our dealings with others. 

Non-vegans falling back

1454: 

If we don’t drop animal products we can’t be peacemakers.  When we go shopping for animals or sit down to eat them, we encourage the assault on them.  We waste our own happiness, and waste it for animals too.  To them we are their only hope.  If some of us aren’t willing to defend them, they’re lost.  By taking part in the violence implicit in buying slaughterhouse products, we play a role in the slaughterhouse process.

But we are easily fooled.  The meat dripping with blood brings the animal connection that much closer.  But what about the clean-looking foods we also buy.  Not a drop of blood in sight.  No evidence from the product that the animal has been subjected to cruelty or indeed slaughter.  Milk, cheese, wool, leather, eggs. But each farm animal is abused and cruelly slaughtered when the animal is used up or the human no longer has any use for them.

         

The seemingly benign egg has come to represent perhaps the worst violence, as well as the most mindless compliance of the consumer.  Here’s what happens: I buy a packet of biscuits the ingredients of which include egg, and that egg comes from caged hens.  As a biscuit eater I don’t want to know about egg-laying hens and their circumstances.  I just want my biscuits.  But whether I know the ingredients’ background or not, the fact is my biscuit contains something that can’t be justified, eggs, which come from the battery system.  I’m sure biscuit makers don’t go around looking for ethical raw materials.

         

Who approves of this system?  Probably none of us would, up-front, but we nevertheless still buy egg-containing-products.  Just by doing that one little thing, we compromise what, otherwise, makes us caring people.  It seems pathetic to be seduced by a biscuit. 

Vegans starting out

1453: 

When I decided to do something, to protest, to speak out, to become vegan, the first thing I noticed was that my own self esteem received a boost, and that felt good.  But then I made a mistake.  I thought others would notice what I'd done and want to follow suit.  But no, it ain’t necessarily so.  Just becoming vegan is all I was going to be able to do, at first, while waiting for the penny to drop with others.  

         

You can’t just go up to people and suggest they change.  There’s nothing simple about shifting a well established mind-set.  All I could do was wait, and let them come to their senses in their own time.  But who's got the patience, especially knowing that all those beautiful animals are being slaughtered to feed the mindless rush for meat and all the other animal-based stuff.  Nah, I couldn't resist, just as other vegans can’t resist, urging people to wake up.  It was a fruitless urging, as it turns out.

But it interests me that people insist so determinedly to stay asleep over animal issues.  Probably for safety reason?  When any of us first contemplated a vegan lifestyle we probably considered all the obstacles first - and until these were cleared up we weren't going to be persuaded to take such a radical step as 'going vegan'.  In my own case, I kept asking myself if it was safe? I eventually decided that it seemed to be safe enough.

         

That’s how most practising vegans start out.  They read, they talk, they question and conclude that the risk is worth taking.  In 1943, when all this started, it rested on a belief that one could physically survive on plants.  It sounded bizarre and dangerous at the time, but in hindsight we can see things more clearly.  We’ve made great advances in understanding nutrition, and we’ve been given lots of food choices which people didn’t have then.  Now the question we ask is what food and clothing can NOT be manufactured from plants?  Certainly egg white is valuable to the chef just as leather protects our feet in the rain but apart from that, what are the advantages of animal products?  And are these advantages worth torturing and killing millions of innocent animals?

         

The reason why vegan thinking and vegan eating and vegan clothing is so important is that vegans are showing others that physical survival is possible without recourse to animal exploitation.  Those of us on vegan diets, for instance, have found remarkable improvements in health and well being.  And the effect on the mind, the brain, the conscience and the soul are more than remarkable, if unprovable.

         

At first though, my experiments were glitch-ed.  My body and mind needed time to readjust and, on a social level, relationships needed time to acclimatise.  I had to work on various levels simultaneously, until things were running smoothly.  Vegan diets are not a complete panacea.  Food, however good it is, won’t necessarily bring us any closer to becoming a more loving person or to 'non-separating' from others.  But, for me, it did install the principle of non-violence into my thinking.  By avoiding all that nasty animal food, I was also avoiding the nastier side of my nature coming out, and allowing me to think of myself as non-complicit with daily acts of animal cruelty.

Comforts for the carnivores

1452: 

   

Unless we leap forward into herbivorous-ness we’ll continue to assault animals.  We’ll risk everything for the sake of comfort food, none of which is nutritionally necessary, none un-replaceable by plant-based alternatives or, if clothing, with plant or synthetic fibres.  And yet people still go for animal-based products.  Perhaps that’s because there’s immense variety to choose from.   But, for that little luxury we pay dearly.  Mainly over food.  We can’t knock off those pop-foods which the ‘Evil Empire’ churns out.

         

We know that animals can’t hit back so it's quite safe to continue abusing them.  We do it because we know we can ‘get away with it’.  And it’s true, they can’t hit back, but there’s always a sting in the tail.  Their edible body parts are full of slow toxins.  By way of all that saturated fat and high protein, plus the adrenaline infusing into muscle tissue when terrified animals get to the abattoir, animals do ‘hit back’.  It’s like Montezuma’s revenge.  If we eat animals to feel good we end up NOT feeling so good –  these are our just returns for what we’ve put them through.  This is our penalty for pretending NOT to know about it or care about it.

         

Until recently, the mass of our population has not been made aware that there was any danger in eating animal foods (both from an ethical or health perspective).  We’ve just mindlessly eaten what our parents ate, clothed ourselves in the clothes everyone else buys.  Thus, we've exploited animals, using them merely as an available resource.  If we’ve been doing it for aeons it’s because there’s been no evidence that people have ever related to animals in any different way.  There's no history of treating animals in a non-violent way or symbiotic way.

         

We’re a very utilitarian species.  We’ve learned how to take advantage of anything that can’t fight back.  Animals have always been easy pickings - we’ve caught them, kept them captive (and now today imprison them in some sort of cage to restrict their movement), efficiently bred them, extracted whatever we could from them and finally executed them.  We’re pragmatic enough to design execution chambers for them, so they can be ‘killed humanely’!  And then, for chrissakes, we EAT them.  What sort of relationship is that, between fellow sentient beings?

         

The way animals are treated is so sad that I can hardly think about it.  And thinking is the key here, the lack of which leads most poor suckers to the doors of the abattoir to buy their daily three-meals-a-day-drug.  And they’re willing to have large amounts of their money extracted from them to pay for it, for what is definitely replaceable by a more humane and healthy alternative.  For clever humans to not think things through seems strange, so perhaps even stranger, even those with animal sympathies, is that almost every person is unaware of the cruelty behind the shoes they wear or the wool by which they keep warm.  It's only our self deluding convenience-thinking that allows us to believe that such things as milk and eggs and wool and leather do NOT involve the suffering or killing of animals - this is usually the 'thinking' behind the so called 'vegetarian', not using meat but the use of everything else from animals. 

Some Personal Background

1451:

 

Edited by CJ Tointon

In my early twenties I noticed some unexpected deteriorations in my body.  I instinctively put this down to lifestyle abuses, particularly my crap diet, specifically my use of animal products.  Reason enough to try to avoid animal stuff altogether.  And simultaneously, I was finding out about the endemic cruelty involved in farming animals.  Forty years later, I know my instincts were spot on.

At the time, I couldn’t admit that my eating habits were clouding my judgement.  Now I know they did!  Luckily I stumbled across macrobiotics and that eventually got me away from crap food and led me towards whole foods.  Later, as the concept of 'Animal Rights' began to sink in, I was drawn to a plant-based food regime.  I began to feel my taste for this sort of food growing.  I actually liked it more than I thought I would.  As I got over my cravings for 'nursery teas', rich dinners and snack treats, I came to feel a sense of tremendous gratitude that I had stumbled upon all this at a relatively early age.  These days much younger people are introduced to plant-based regimes and there are even kids who’ve been vegan from birth. I regard these as the lucky ones.

But I appreciate my own early exploring and the fact that I didn’t leave it too late to realise that something in my life was about to be irretrievably spoiled.  Vitality and sharpness, which I think I possess, did not necessarily have to be adversely affected by the 'ageing process' (which is what most older people put their various deteriorations down to).  I now realise that the great benefits of having both a clear conscience and a healthy physical body can be put down to eating 'clean' food, by which I mean plant-based foods. 

Back-in-time, something else was jogging me in the right direction.  I was school-teaching and many of the kids came from overseas (this was London 1968).  I saw kids who’d suffered serious malnutrition and who’d lost confidence in themselves because of it.  Their circumstances had now changed - they'd come to an 'advanced' country to live.  But what I saw was not very advanced.  I saw them now being poisoned by crap Western food -  and eating too much of it.  When their bodies bloated out it was another blow to their self-esteem.  Then, as they learnt about animals on prison farms, I suppose it added to their sense of shame.  In a short space of time I saw honourable children go downhill - and all because they were mesmerised by plentiful supplies of food and they wanted to enjoy eating 'junk' food - like other kids.

Because of the human's attachment to animal food over many generations, the harsh reality of what animals are put through is forgotten.  We’ve grown accustomed to it.  Habits have formed and we've grown into 'hard hearts', hardening with every mouthful of 'animal food' we eat.  In the flush of adult independence, we get used to our own ethical indifference and become hooked by our various food addictions.  And as we continue to accept the foods we like eating, they gradually wreck both body function and our empathy for the creatures we are eating.

For economically-challenged animal farmers, their farm 'produce' is good news.  For the rest of us - it's bad news!  We should realise that animal products are the very worst of ingestive materials and yet they are eminently give-up-able.

 

The comfort of being normal

1450: 

Why are people so hostile towards the idea of respecting animals?  Perhaps because it means losing the animal-content in their diet.  In comparison, a vegan eating regime looks as dry as dust, and to some, close to a living death.

The hostility towards Animal Rights may be coming from a sort of ‘fight or flight’ imperative.  We have to keep our self-protecting, blind-eye shut whilst keeping the other open, to safeguard food supplies.  You can imagine the thoughts of any omnivore: “Damn these vegans who want to close down abattoirs and animal farms, leaving everyone without proper food to eat and clothes to wear”.

Our omnivorous society has to protect its animal-food supply chain.  Here is a massive industry, employing millions and serving many more millions of customers.  Almost every single human on the planet is attracted to at least some of their produce, enough to finance it as well as giving it the tick of moral approval.  Taste-wise, the foods they produce really do work. Perception-wise animal foods are still considered good for one’s health, as in “Meat makes us strong”.  Importantly, a strong human maintains the dominant position - we use animals, they don’t use us.  This is a nod to self preservation.  It is also the guarantee of comfort and satisfaction at mealtimes.  And if there are any qualms about this using-of-animals, the very fact that ‘everyone is doing it’, confirms a strong sense of the normality of it, which protects us from feeling guilty about the animals we’re helping to kill.

Since almost everybody is holding hands with each other on this matter, it's easier to believe that animal-foods are natural and eating them is normal, and therefore there is no need to talk about it further.

Any in-depth discussion of this subject is tabooed, for obvious reasons.  Because the guaranteeing of ‘essential’ food supplies is important, there must only be minimal light thrown on farming practices.  Which is why there is such hostility shown to anyone highlighting the cruelty of animal farming or who is pointing out the unhealthy consequences of eating animal protein.   Even doctors, themselves omnivores, have a vested interest in nutritionally misinforming their patients.  Otherwise, their only choice would be to become vegans themselves and to prescribe plant-based diets to their patients.

But change is in the air.  Today, in spite of all the obstacles, consumers are becoming better informed.  Understandably, the more they learn the less they want to be poisoned.  And that ties in neatly with our inner cravings for peace, empathy and compassion.  These days ‘being normal’ seems to be dangerous.  Our hospitals are full of ‘normals’.  Most of us vegans are wanting to avoid the normal, disassociating from the majority and starting instead to trust our own instincts. 

Survival and addiction

1449: 

There are two perceptions that always clash.  The omnivore: “What’s worse than vegan food? I can’t stand vegans with their self-righteousness.  They feel superior to anyone who can’t meet their impossible targets.  The vegan: “What’s worse than eating bits of dead animal.  The omnivore's eating habits are so ugly, especially their dominant, meat-eating, cleverest-being-on-the-planet attitude”.

The whole subject of what we eat and why we eat it is a private affair.  It’s no one else’s business, although vegans take on the role of advocating on behalf of the voiceless animals, because they can't speak for themselves.  So, speak we must, I must, if only to counterbalance the overwhelming mindset that says animals are put on Earth for human benefit.  The main job of vegans is to find ways to constructively engage others in dialogue, proposing as carefully as possible the ‘no-touch-animals’ attitude;  it's my belief that humans are not to be trusted around animals because we always take advantage of them.

My main problem, by making this sort of statement, is that I might scare people off, so how I put my words is important.  This tricky subject has to be a non-judgement zone.  For my part, it is to state clearly how I feel without any ‘self’ or self-righteousness creeping into my voice.  “Humans treat these food-animals very badly” – that’s an accepted fact, and I doubt if any omnivore would disagree.  It doesn’t need any colouring, any disapproval in the tone of my voice.  The statement is enough on its own to draw a response.   But to balance things up, I think it helps if we can say something self-denigrating, if only to reinforce a sense of equality between us, so that different views are simply that, so what I say doesn't present an insuperable barrier.  I would attempt to be saying something important, but rather than it sounding like a moral lecture, it’s more effective if I'm able to get just a couple of points across.

For what it’s worth, here’s my view: I don’t think humans hate animals; I don’t think many people are innately violent; I don’t think we have a blood lust; none of us want to be cold-hearted or hard-nosed. There's a potential vegan in every one of us. And at some point in the future the idea of farming animals and eating them or their secretions will be seen to be disgusting. But that is not the culture at present.

Take a sheep farmer or a pastoralist. They live by killing animals, even though they get others to do their killing for them - if they weren’t cold-hearted they couldn’t do what they do to their animals; if they weren’t hardened, they’d be put out of business by their competitors.  But that’s their problem, and it’s not what would concern me, since I would like to see their animal enterprises go belly-up.  My concern is more with the millions of customers of the Animal Industries, who might want to stop using meat and all the other products that come from the animal farm, who might want to find something better.  These are the people who are held back by their own eating habits, their leather shoes and their tacit support of abattoirs.  And these are people who know that once they drop their ‘blood-dependencies’, they will be free to explore a more satisfying purpose-of-existence.

Once the link is broken, between oneself and the ‘hard-nosed’ animal exploiters, one can identify with being a humane human, a helping-guarding type.  Humans are born rescuers, protectors and ‘explorers’.  At heart, many of us are wanna-be farmers.  Never having grown even a radish myself, I still feel a strong primal link to the land, to provide food, to link with Nature and to be non-destructive.

I suspect no one actually likes being part of the animal-destruction business.  There would be few people who enjoy making a living out of betraying an innocent, peace-loving being, by tricking them into believing you care for them only to then put a gun to their heads.

On the other hand, I suspect anyone could be drawn to some form of ethical husbandry - to the provision of basic needs, whilst remaining protective and empathetic to Nature.  That’s why animal farming is inherently ugly and why Animal Rights feels so important as a precept, and why it has to become enshrined in law.

Shopping for food

1448: 

It all happens in the shopping aisles of supermarkets.  This is where most people make their biggest food decisions, either based on taste or ethics.  This is where vegans use their money to support cruelty-free enterprises, and this is where we withdraw it from cruelty-products.

I, like most people, am food-seduced.  I’m drawn to foods that trigger “biochemical effects not unlike those of addictive drugs”.  I was brought up on and came to like sugars combined with creamy chocolaty crunchy rubbish-foods, and on the savoury side I got hooked into things like cheese, eggs and meat. I let my taste buds be my guide and do the choosing for me.  I would salivate over certain foods as I visualised the coming meal, for which I’d bought the ingredients.

         

All that was to change when I replaced animal-based foods with plant-based foods (and leather and wool replaced by non-animal footwear and fabrics).  All I needed to do was to read the fine print on ingredient lists, boycott anything with animal in it, and then try to find an alternative product.  Not always easy, especially a few decades ago, but then as now it all comes down to finding replacements.  And if there is nothing to replace the animal product then it's a matter of doing without rather than caving-in.

If one stays locked into animal-food one is always going to be faced with an ethical dilemma - either to please the senses by ‘screwing the animals’, or bringing that to an end.  Who’d have thought something as ordinary as every-day shopping could pose such a test?

Taste bud transitions

1447: 

When I decided to dip my toes into ‘the chilly waters’ of a plant-based food regime I started by putting soy milk on my muesli.  I began to cook tofu and falafel and plant-based burgers.  It was all different.  It was a shock, and yet my taste bud revolt lasted all but five minutes.  The 'chilly waters' were in my mind.  Partly I feared the unknown and partly I resented denying myself products which others would still be enjoying.

Because I was afraid of turning back to familiar foods I had to use bog-standard will power.   After a life time of cultivating my taste buds, I couldn’t re-educate them overnight.  Thankfully, the taste-test was short-lived, but I wouldn’t have known that before I started.  Thankfully, the driver here wasn't about food preference, it was this whole cruelty-to-animals thing.  That was more prominent than anything else, and I still think for most people it’s the most powerful persuader.

         

I was determined to succeed in the food switch-over because I'd become convinced about the whole ‘no-touch-animals’ idea.  And the more I considered how certain foods come to us the more I saw animal foods as grey and ugly.  It was that 'greying'  that mainly got me over craving my favourite-foods (and snacks!).

         

I came to appreciate subtler food experiences.  The taste blast of cheese, the richness of egg-based foods, attractive but nutritionally-empty confections and cakes - I was ending my relationship with so many foods which I'd relied on.  I found myself eating whole foods that weren't laced with sugar, salt and fats.  There was a world of new  flavours, new textures, and especially new good-feelings about the cruelty-free-ness of the food itself.  Food, and later clothing, no longer had to be tinged with guilt, since they were all governed by vegan principles.